|
No. 134097
| Joe Herman, Sue Herman, Jay Jollay, Sarah |
|
George G. Timmer |
| Jollay, Jerry Jollay, Neal Kreitner, Tony Peterson, |
|
Mark A. Westrate |
| Liz Peterson, Randy Bjorge, Annette Bjorge, and |
|
|
| Tina Buck, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Berrien - Maloney, P.) |
|
|
| County of Berrien, |
|
Michael B. Ortega |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Townships Association and Michigan Municipal League's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
In March 2005, Berrien County entered into a 20-year lease with Landfill Management Company for a 14-acre parcel in Coloma Township. The county proposed to construct four outdoor shooting ranges for use by county law enforcement agencies, as well as a training facility building. Shooting ranges are not a permitted use for this property, which is zoned as a primary agricultural district under the Coloma Township ordinance. Gun clubs are permitted only if a special land use permit is issued by the township board, and the township anti-noise ordinance applies to this property. Under that ordinance, the volume of permitted noise ranges from 65 decibels between 7:00 a.m., and 10:00 p.m., to 55 decibels at all other times. The ordinance also prohibits the operation of mechanical devices in a manner that disturbs the “quiet, comfort, or repose of any person.” The plaintiffs own property near the proposed shooting ranges. According to the county’s own feasibility study, approximately 370 surrounding acres, 200 of which are privately owned, would fall within the peak noise level contours from the range, which would exceed 87 decibels. Proponents argue that the firing ranges are necessary for proper law enforcement training, because indoor ranges do not mimic the real-life experiences that officers encounter in the field. Opponents argue that the shooting ranges pose a danger to nearby inhabitants, and that the ranges will cause a significant decline in nearby property values. The Coloma Township Board unanimously agreed not to support the project, but the County Board of Commissioners approved it; the landowners sued. The plaintiffs argued that the shooting ranges are subject to the township’s zoning ordinance, that they constitute a nuisance per se, and that their operation would violate the township’s anti-noise ordinance. The trial court ruled in the county’s favor, holding that the county’s power to site buildings takes priority over the township’s zoning. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published split decision. The landowners appeal.
Top of Page
|
